1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Offshoring the Megatrend of the Century

Home Forums Research Business Offshoring the Megatrend of the Century

This topic contains 32 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 4 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22901
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Well said, ellmer.

    #22902
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    ellmer

    No by “non interference” i do not mean “sovereignty” i mean “not meddle with people’s private business” i mean “privacy” i mean the implementation of the glorious right of self determination and the quest for freedom and happyness whatever a person understands as such.

    That’s just not possible on Earth, agencies like NSA can spy anywhere. Say goodbye to your privacy. The only way to stop this spying is confronting it with the same forces. If NSA has 5000 hackers, then to counterattack you must have ~ the same number of hackers. If NSA has 1000 lawyers, you must have 1000 lawyers. The only way to achieve that is to make a country. The sphere will be heavily spied on from the time of formation. If it starts to represent any danger, it will be teared in pieces. The world has changed, it’s not 10th century anymore and not 19th century. You can’t simply jumpstart a country on the ocean without everyone knowing, spying and heavily interfering.
    Moreover, from your words it follows that you are a benevolent dictator. You want 9.9 interference space. But it works for people who are alone, or who are dictators. You can’t get 9.9 space if you have a neighbor who can see you on the street, who can talk to you if you don’t want, who can sing songs anytime, who can file a petition against you.
    Sorry, we are just walking in circles here, you repeat the same arguments over and over. I’m still waiting for answers on two following questions:
    a) Why can’t states interfere with a sphere on the ocean?
    b) How is 9.9 state possible in democratic society?


    I think the whole idea of the need of a 10.000 page rulebook that only a lawyer can understand, needing to be written, and enforced, on a not consienting population is somewhat sick.

    Well, you are an engineer, don’t you think to become an engineer you must read 10.000 page book? It’s the same with laws or politics, do you consider these areas of science a toy for babies?


    I spot that in our world this democratic base idea is lost in the sea of “ruling producing buerocrats, politicians seeking lobby benefits, and enforcement agencies going wild on many levels” this whole sistem does not ask for the consient of the citicen anymore – as they should.

    That’s a logical fallacy: bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily mean we should destroy 10.000 pages rulebooks. It means the specific bureaucracy must be destroyed, because they’ve become analogous to bad engineers.


    I also think that the idea that one person should be King over another and subdue that person is sick and wrong.

    So the idea of a stupid man not having the same rights as a smart man is also sick and wrong? Maybe we should allow anyone to become engineers who read a brochure and the chief engineer will be chosen by voting amongst those persons? Maybe we would also allow chimpanzees to vote for president, seeing as how they have consciousness and can communicate with humans?


    The only way to do that in a civilized and legal way is “offshoring” in its widest sense, you accomodate citicenship, residency, bank account, production sites, in the right way and you are subdued by no king “de facto” as you are “out of jurisdiction for every interferer”.

    I’ve never said you’re wrong on that. What I said is that it’s not possible on Earth nowadays, and you never proved me wrong. I’ve showed you how states battle with offshores, with Bitcoin, with unrecognized countries… The fate of the sphere will be the same. Either there is sovereignty, and then there’s non-interference, or there isn’t sovereignty, and then you become outlaw from the point of view of the states, no matter what you are doing or trying to achieve.


    On a ship with a flag of convenience you still might apply to the rule set of the island nation of bunga bunga, – on paper – but bunga bunga has a agreement with all ships to “not interfere” in exchange to a moderate fee which can be considered a “consented tax” for the service of keeping interferers out of your hair.

    The major power can easily pay more than a “moderate fee” coming from the seastead. And then the seastead will be captured by bunga bunga forces.


    Offshoring is the ARTFORM of balancing and neutralizing the powers that try to interfere and subdue your life – as long as individuals seek self determination and privacy in a ruling infested “red taping world” – offshoring will stay megatrend.

    You are just repeating same mantras like Moses. Venice was created more than 1000 years ago, Nemo and Moreau were written 150 years ago, the world has changed, you’re late to the party. There are only 2 ways now: Sovereignty and Space. That’s what is megatrend. Country Creation and Space Exploration/Mining.

    #22903
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Ancient,

    If you firmly believe that seasteading “is not possible on Earth”, why are you here? Most of us here believe the contrary and we stick to that ideal and to each other. If your idea of “Country Creation” is to buy an island and sovereignty attached to it, why are you here? We want to built a floating city or island here not to buy a piece of land.

    Since there is no obvious reason for you to be here, but you still are, than there must be a reason for that too. Please enlighten us, so we can understand your intentions here, cause so far your contribution to seasteading is zero.

    #22904
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    If you firmly believe that seasteading “is not possible on Earth”, why are you here? Most of us here believe the contrary and we stick to that ideal and to each other. If your idea of “Country Creation” is to buy an island and sovereignty attached to it, why are you here? We want to built a floating city or island here not to buy a piece of land.

    I said non-interference without sovereignty isn’t possible on Earth. Where did I say seasteading itself isn’t possible? Either it’s seasteading with interference or it’s seasteading with sovereignty.
    Moreover, seasteading isn’t only about floating cities and artificial islands. It can be natural islands or ships. Quote from Wikipedia:
    Seasteading is the concept of creating permanent dwellings at sea, called seasteads, outside the territory claimed by the government of any standing nation.


    Since there is no obvious reason for you to be here, but you still are, than there must be a reason for that too. Please enlighten us, so we can understand your intentions here, cause so far your contribution to seasteading is zero.

    It seems people here can’t understand properly what’s being posted. I asked ellmer many times to answer two simple questions, yet he didn’t and continues to repeat same mantras. Now you are attributing to me words I didn’t say. Please, quote where I said seasteading isn’t possible.

    #22905
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Ancient,

    In the context of “offshoring”, there is no doubt in my mind that seasteading will offer the highest degree of “non-interference” (meaning, as ellmer put it, “not meddle with people’s private business”). Sovereignty of a seastead will be GAINED WHILE seasteading, and IS NOT A PREREQUISITE for seasteading.

    You don’t need “sovereignty” to build your own seastead in a cheap boatyard in Guatemala. All you need is money. You don’t need “sovereignty” to gather a crew of like minded individuals who are willing to live, work and self-govern themselves aboard that seastead. All you need is few determined people with balls and cash. If you have that, you have self-determined your right to “sovereignty”, and nobody can take that away from you, no matter what.

    That’s why if you are saying that “non-interference” without sovereignty (implied as a prerequisite) is just saying that seasteading is not possible.

    All this “with or without sovereignty” debate is just a waist of ink and paper to me. And who gives a rats ass that some government agency (any government) will spy on you? I’ll bet you anything that TSI was (and it is) “under scrutiny” from day one… specially when a heavy hitter like Thiel is footing the bill… Get real, get used to it, say “cheese” for the photo in your “private NSA album” with your name on it and carry on…

    Seasteading on an islands or ships is not technically “seasteading” because it’s not “outside the territory claimed by the government of any standing nation”. My firm belief is that when it comes to achieving seasteading goals, “I’d rather ask forgiveness than permission” and all my seasteading plans will “roll like that”, with people who “roll like that”. If you think otherwise, it’s your prerogative and you should seastead accordingly, with “your” people and good luck with that.

    If you put your mind to it, everything is possible on this Earth.

    #22906
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    In the context of “offshoring”, there is no doubt in my mind that seasteading will offer the highest degree of “non-interference” (meaning, as ellmer put it, “not meddle with people’s private business”). Sovereignty of a seastead will be GAINED WHILE seasteading, and IS NOT A PREREQUISITE for seasteading.

    It can be done both ways. But while you seastead you will be interfered heavily, till you gain sovereignty. And there’s no guarantee that the seastead will eventually gain it. Whereas if it’s bought from the start, then at least one recognition will be had. Hence, my argument: it’s either seastead with interference or seastead with sovereignty. Maybe seasteading with interference is the highest degree of possible non-interference without sovereignty, but it surely won’t be 9.9 as ellmer wants us to believe.


    You don’t need “sovereignty” to build your own seastead in a cheap boatyard in Guatemala. All you need is money. You don’t need “sovereignty” to gather a crew of like minded individuals who are willing to live, work and self-govern themselves aboard that seastead. All you need is few determined people with balls and cash. If you have that, you have self-determined your right to “sovereignty”, and nobody can take that away from you, no matter what.

    We already discussed that in another thread. So you insist on repeating the discussion that we already had? OK, here is my answer: you are speaking about domestic sovereignty not about international sovereignty. Essentially, seastead with domestic sovereignty isn’t different from any other unrecognized country (from the point of view of the states). The states will treat it as such and will interfere if they want.


    And who gives a rats ass that some government agency (any government) will spy on you?

    The more high-profile things you do, the more invasive the interference will be. It starts with spying, it ends with force.


    My firm belief is that when it comes to achieving seasteading goals, “I’d rather ask forgiveness than permission” and all my seasteading plans will “roll like that”, with people who “roll like that”.

    All that’s not prohibited is allowed, so I don’t see how forgiveness relates to this. It’s either you are an outlaw if you don’t follow law, or you are a respectable subject of international law.


    Seasteading on an islands or ships is not technically “seasteading” because it’s not “outside the territory claimed by the government of any standing nation”.

    Why not? If no country claims the island or ship, then there’s no contradiction with the definition.


    If you put your mind to it, everything is possible on this Earth.

    Of course, everything is possible, if the situation changes. It’s possible in theory, but in practice the geopolitical situation has to change so that offshoring isn’t fought. It used to be possible, it can again become possible, but right now it’s not possible.

    #22907
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    The situation will change only if whoever wants to change it will do so.

    All the islands, islets, rocks are claimed, man. All ships are registered under a flag. We talked about it, too. It is possible but it will cost tenth of millions to buy an island and sovereignty attached to it. If you have that kind of cash, just do it.

    It will cost under $100k to build a small floating islet, start immediately and grow from there.

    You are just assuming that the “more high-profile things you do, the more invasive the interference will be. It starts with spying, it ends with force.” Thinks don’t work like that at sea. How long have you been @ sea? If your “high profile” is terrorism and piracy of course you’ll get fucked up fast. If your “high profile” is marine environment research, responsible fishing, tourism on your seastead, salvage work, aquaculture, alternative energy production & research, etc, than we’ll make partners, not enemies.

    How do you know how heavy your seasteading venture will be interfered until international sovereignty recognition? That’s another personal assumption of yours based on a limited understanding of maritime law and life on the high seas. In reality, floating 1000 nm offshore you might see a mast on the horizon once a month. Out of those, 80% will be merchant ships steaming to their destination which won’t give a shit about you showing as a blip on their radar screens, 15% sailboat cruisers which will be your best customers and 5% man of wars undergoing some naval exercise or chasing drug runners or pirates that might as well ignore you. What do you think they gonna do,…stop by and ask for id and insurance like an LA cop that can’t wait to piss on you rights? It doesn’t work like that out there man…But assuming they’ll stop by, they’ll most likely ask you to identify yourself and you’ll just do that, as “your seastead name” and “independent oceanic territory free floating on the high seas flying our own flag” and that might be about it, they’ll be under way and you’ll be under way. Do you really think that any captain in the right mind would actually care which flag your flying or that he will waste his time with 100 people who are playing seasteading 1000 nm offshore?

    #22908
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    All the islands, islets, rocks are claimed, man. All ships are registered under a flag. We talked about it, too. It is possible but it will cost tenth of millions to buy an island and sovereignty attached to it. If you have that kind of cash, just do it.

    OK, let’s imagine I did it without a team. Now what, do I become a dictator? I’m not going to let others rule my country if I was the only one who paid for it. Moreover, if I have no team, then I can’t trust anyone, I don’t have administrative staff and so on.
    So the logical conclusion is to gather the team.


    It will cost under $100k to build a small floating islet, start immediately and grow from there.

    OK, now see how much businesses fail in the first year of existence. By the way, we already talked about this a lot.


    You are just assuming that the “more high-profile things you do, the more invasive the interference will be. It starts with spying, it ends with force.” Thinks don’t work like that at sea. How long have you been @ sea? If your “high profile” is terrorism and piracy of course you’ll get fucked up fast. If your “high profile” is marine environment research, responsible fishing, tourism on your seastead, salvage work, aquaculture, alternative energy production & research, etc, than we’ll make partners, not enemies.

    Have you heard what Russians recently did to Greenpeace people? That’s what awaits anyone who behaves like they have sovereignty, even though they are not recognized. Do salvage work and aquaculture as much as you want, that’s more like oceanic business rather than seasteading.


    How do you know how heavy your seasteading venture will be interfered until international sovereignty recognition?

    Listen, we already talked about all that you just posted. What’s the deal with you and ellmer? Do I have to repeat myself over and over? We discussed already high-profile activity and why the seastead will be interfered. Refer to that thread, please. If you don’t remember, I’ll quote myself:

    What do you mean by being left alone? Are we talking about hermits? Then it’s a totally different case. I’m speaking about a situation when there are a lot of skilled people with strong beliefs on-board, who trade with other countries, who make business, who use Internet etc. That’s not being left alone in my book. It’s all about being included in the world economy. In such circumstances the platform is a potentially dangerous structure, especially if it has arms. If the captain suspects any danger to his crew when his ship sails near the platform, he will at least issue a warning to it, at most attack right away. Even if there’s no imminent danger to the Navy ship, the states will be highly suspicious of such formation that is not respecting sovereign law, isn’t paying taxes to no one, has a lot of high-profile activity and arms etc. One mistake, any mistake, and they bring it down. That’s not to say they won’t tolerate for a bit of time 1 or 2 such platforms, but not much more. Yet the goal of TSI is enabling everyone to create countries. It’s just not viable long-term.

    #22909
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Maybe Ancientman is associated with this system of freedom from interference: http://newint.org/features/1981/07/01/phoenix/

    #22910
    Avatar of spark
    spark
    Participant

    Ellmer;
    .
    You are making perfect sense. Stop it! We can’t have that around here.

    #22911
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Ancient

    First of all, in regards to Greenpeace, those idiots should consider themselves VERY lucky to be alive. They where operating in the Russian territorial water under a Dutch flag and they climbed aboard The Prirazlomnaya platform which is a stationary unit that is attached to the sea floor inside the EEZ of the Russian Federation and owned by Gazprom.

    http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/08/24/greenpeace_activists_climb_up_russian_arctic_oil_rig_17648.html

    That’s piracy, plain and simple and the Russians actually showed A LOT of restraint. If they would have tried to board a seastead, they would have been given one warning and then shot at if they wouldn’t have backed down. End of story. Get your facts right regarding maritime law.

    Of course we’ll do salvage and aquaculture on a seastead “as much as we want”. Your are saying it with and attitude of a wannabe qualified authority on what kind of businesses should be done or not on a seastead. If you have operated a seastead before, let us know man, share your experiences with us, don’t hold out.

    Please stop quoting your aberration about a seastead not being “tolerated” or being shot down by “them”. These are segments of your imaginations, not facts.

    Also, your are saying again that seasteading isn’t possible. “Yet the goal of TSI is enabling everyone to create countries. It’s just not viable long-term.” With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    #22913
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    They where operating in the Russian territorial water under a Dutch flag and they climbed aboard The Prirazlomnaya platform which is a stationary unit that is attached to the sea floor inside the EEZ of the Russian Federation and owned by Gazprom.

    It’s not prohibited to go through EEZ with another country flag. Also, the ship was captured in international waters, they were held without charges and so on. You make the mistake of USA police dictatorship, that goes around killing people or putting them in Guantanamo. Russians had no legal rights to do what they did.
    The article you link to is on pro-Russian site, it’s made by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official newspaper of Russian Government. Look at the reaction of the democratic world. I see you, like ellmer with his Abramovich, are protecting authoritarian regimes and oligarchs. That’s exactly what many libertarians do and that’s exactly why they fail all over the world. True libertarian would not support dictatorship of 9.9 space.


    Of course we’ll do salvage and aquaculture on a seastead “as much as we want”. Your are saying it with and attitude of a wannabe qualified authority on what kind of businesses should be done or not on a seastead.

    I’m saying there’s big difference between legal and illegal business. Who is gonna buy things from you if you are not registered anywhere and don’t pay taxes to no one, have unclear legal status and so on? Most probably, it would be black market. Even if you do find someone who will buy from you, you will be considered illegal tax haven by major powers and they will dispatch forces like with Greenpeace ship.


    These are segments of your imaginations, not facts.

    The fact is that there is no political seastead. Please, stop imagining that you have like-minded persons to create your seastead or that you have money for seastead. You don’t even have place on your site for discussions. You are just assuming anything will be built at all and operated for long enough time to acquire sovereignty. What a wild imagination.


    That’s piracy, plain and simple and the Russians actually showed A LOT of restraint. If they would have tried to board a seastead, they would have been given one warning and then shot at if they wouldn’t have backed down. End of story. Get your facts right regarding maritime law.
    Also, your are saying again that seasteading isn’t possible.

    Get your facts right regarding maritime and international law. And learn to read and remember what you’ve read. End of story.

    #22915
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    This is interesting also: http://newint.org/features/1981/07/01/phoenix/ , note it is dated 1981.

    #22918
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    The ship was captured inside the EEZ of the Russian federation, not in the international waters.

    http://www.gazprom.com/about/production/projects/deposits/pnm/

    They were climbing aboard that platform and they were told not to. Water cannons were used and warning shots were fired in the air. And after that they got arrested. Dahh…how dumb can you be?? Why don’t you go and climb a BP oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico so you can test the “western democratic” response to that? At least the Russian let them go. In US, you will be prosecuted and you will do time.

    I’m not a libertarian. Therefore I am a true libertarian.

    A business will be registered with the Seastead and it will pay taxes to the Seasted. What are you thinking? That the Seastead will just let anybody do whatever they want or make money on the Seastead without the Seastead getting a cut out of it? We might start as a non profit but 1000 nm out there are no free rides.

    You don’t know who I am, what I have or who my associates are. I do have a place for discussions on the website and it’s password protected. Everything will be built and operated as planned, and you are damn right for a change: all according to a wild, progressive and visionary imagination.

    #23152

    Out to sea, out of mind

    The secret offshore world of the superrich

    by John Urry

    Warren Buffett once remarked that we were in the midst of a new class war. “There is class warfare, all right,” he said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

    One of the ways the rich have waged this war has been through offshoring: moving resources, practices, people and money from one national territory to another and hiding them within secrecy jurisdictions.

    Offshoring involves evading rules, laws, taxes, regulations or norms in ways that are either illegal or against the spirit of the law. Offshore worlds developed because of mobility systems that transport people, money, information and objects across the oceans. These include not only physical infrastructure to move cargo ships, planes, cars and trucks but also virtual infrastructure like electronic money-transfer systems and taxation, legal and financial expertise for avoiding national regulations.

    This offshoring world is dynamic, reorganizing economic, social, political and material relations among societies and also within them. Above all, it is secretive. This makes it a paradise for the rich, a vision of the world almost without government, taxes and laws, where only the powerful, their ships and their companies survive and everyone else is left — sometimes literally — to sink to the bottom.
    Secret paradises

    Offshoring is a key part of globalization. Throughout the 1990s, it was a widely held belief that the global movement of money, people, ideas, images, information and objects was economically, politically and culturally beneficial. Most aspects of contemporary societies were thought to have been positively transformed through increased borderlessness.

    But the ’90s did not turn out to be the harbinger of an optimistic and borderless future. It turns out that there’s a dark side to constant movement. Moving across borders are many new risks, trafficked men and women, drug runners, terrorists, criminals, slave traders, smuggled workers, waste, financial risks and untaxed trillions — to name just a few downsides. They inhabit various secret spheres designed to enable movement out of sight. Central to these offshore worlds are the vast oceans.

    Since some 7 billion humans are crowded onto just one-quarter of the earth’s surface, oceans provide ways to obscure what would otherwise be onshore and therefore visible. There are ships flying flags of convenience where work conditions for seafarers are driven to rock bottom. There are places in the sea where many poor migrants have lost their lives in transit to what they hoped would be a better life. Oceans are a global rubbish dump, with the great Pacific garbage patch twice the size of France.

    This new global order is thus the opposite of open and transparent. It is a world of concealment, of secret gardens mainly orchestrated in and for the rich class. Tax havens are places of escape and freedom, often with nice beaches. But it’s not the sun and sand that have recalibrated the entire global economy in a few short decades. That shift is to blame on another kind of paradise — the paradise of low taxes, wealth management, deregulation and secrecy.

    Since the 1980s, there has been an astonishing growth in the movement of wealth to and through the world’s 60 to 70 tax havens, which today represent at least one-quarter of existing countries. These tax havens are as likely to be in the middle of nowhere as in your own backyard. They include Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Manhattan, the City of London, Panama, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Jersey, Delaware, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. The development of secrecy jurisdictions are core to the liberalization of the global economy that began in the 1980s, and they contributed to the ending of many currency-exchange controls — which enabled money to flow around the world and to develop the power of an unregulated shadow finance.

    This rich class is the beneficiary of these havens. Almost all major companies have offshore accounts or subsidiar­ies, more than half of world trade passes through them at some point, and almost all high-net-worth individuals possess offshore accounts enabling tax planning (i.e., avoidance). Ninety-nine of Europe’s hundred largest com­panies use offshore subsidiaries. It has been calculated that one-quarter to one-third of all global wealth is held offshore.

    Despite governments’ constant assertions that they are cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance,offshored money has grown from $11 billion in 1968 to $21 trillion in 2010 (equivalent to about one-third of annual world income). According to the Tax Justice Network’s calculations, fewer than 10 million people own this $21 trillion offshore fortune, a sum equivalent to the combined GDPs of the United States and Japan. This is the source of power and wealth of the superrich, with almost all owing their fortunes in part to the rapid and secret moving of money and ownership.

    In “Treasure Islands,” his 2011 book about tax havens, Nicholas Shaxson shows that offshore is how the world of power now works. Money staying onshore is almost now the exception, suitable only for the little people still paying taxes. Big, institutional money is often offshored in one way or another. Shaxson describes how the United States is by a far the world’s most important secrecy jurisdiction. In the little state of Delaware, there is a single building that houses 217,000 companies. Shaxson conservatively calculates the annual loss of taxation from this offshoring world at hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars. The offshore world also makes it hard for small and medium-size companies to compete.
    Nowhere men

    “You don’t live anywhere, and neither does your money,” one commentator said about being a billionaire. “Or, rather, you live everywhere, and so does your money.” This life involves rapid movement across the oceans, with homes dotted around the world, endless business travel, private schools, family structured around occasional get-togethers, private leisure clubs, luxury ground transport, airport lounges, private jets, luxury destinations and places of distinction and luxury for encountering other superrich people. Place, property and power are intertwined in forming and sustaining such a networked and often hidden rich class.

    And the consequences of offshoring are not just to heighten the privileges of the superrich. It also means that the rest of society suffers, from the loss of tax revenue and higher taxes paid by the little people, from the deterioration of public services, from a lack of control of resources, from images of the good life that are unsustainable and from an inability to effect a collective response to major issues like climate change.

    We neglect these offshore worlds at our peril, especially in examining how what has escaped offshore might ever be reshored. This offshoring and lack of transparency is bad for democratic governance and for societies’ ever being able to move together toward a better future. The motto for these water worlds might as well be “Out to sea and out of mind.”

    This argument is developed in: John Urry’s “Offshoring,” Polity (2014). Visit this link for a short offshoring video.

    John Urry is a distinguished professor of sociology and the director of the Centre for Mobilities Research at Lancaster University. His recent books include “Climate Change and Society” (2011) and “Societies Beyond Oil” (2013).

    This article reflects John Urry’s opinion about offshoring – which is not exactly coincident with my opinion of the topic…the reason i print it here is because it gives a “comprehensive overview about the de-facto state”.

    To read more why oceanic business is the next big thing to come:
    http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56680633/the-reasons-why-oceanic-business-is-the-next-big-thing-to-co/

    To see more why offshoring is the megatrend of the century:
    http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56691920/offshoring-the-megatrend-of-the-century/

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate